Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

generalcanada said:
● Provide a property appraisal to residents with concerns over a potential property value decrease, and potential limitations around their ability to sell during construction (Re: flag on their property title)
Click to expand...

They'll make their money back AFTER the the construction.
 
generalcanada said:
why is it a bad idea to cover the bridge? astetics? im sure we can find a decent looking design right?
Click to expand...

Noise simply can't be a huge issue for most of the span across the Don Valley - and keep in mind the DVP is literally right by the neighbourhood and it is not covered.

AoD
 
generalcanada said:
● Residents who are impacted by tunnelling directly below them should be offered to be put up in a hotel for the duration of the construction
Click to expand...
lol I mean if you really want to stay in a hotel for near a decade, be my guest.. but man, that's a ridiculous ask. A couple other funny ones but that one made me legitimately snort. It would likely be cheaper for Metrolinx to expropriate it, rent it out for a decade during construction, and resell after completion.

Also the ask for it to be tunneled but also not to tunnel under existing residents.
 
There are some examples of partially covered subway bridges directly by residential areas for noise control reasons - but the whole bridge? When it is in the middle of a river valley? Why?

AoD
 
Last edited:
Ok....I'm not going to weigh in on all of this...........but indulge me....

generalcanada said:
● A fully covered Don Valley bridge to eliminate train noise and vibrations -
● an ecological barrier and/or sound barrier on the south side of the Don Valley (north side of Hopedale Ave.) to reduce train and DVP noise
Click to expand...

A sound barrier at the top of ravine properties, large enough to mitigate the sound would do more to devalue those properties than the noise ever would.

But, if we're going for extravagant asks........I don't mind the idea of a cover for a section of the DVP here, covered by shrubs and trees and grasses (a way for wildlife to get over the DVP from the slope).

generalcanada said:
● Build under the valley and river, no bridge needed
Click to expand...

For all intents and purposes, not feasible.

It could be done, but it would require the subway to begin a massive descent well to the south.......and it would be at an absurd depth relative to the Thorncliffe community once it crossed. It would not be able to make the climb for a considerable distance, the cost of a station at the requisite depth is nuts.

generalcanada said:
● Create a much-needed pedestrian sidewalk and bike lanes along Millwood from the north end of the Leaside Bridge to Redpath St.
Click to expand...

LOL.....Redpath St? Really? Its Redway Road.

Its actually a good ask, they really do need a sidewalk on the west side of Millwood, and cycle tracks would be great too, though very challenging to fit.

But rather important to get the road name right.

generalcanada said:
● Free parking along Pape during construction. The scope of this construction will have an impact on local residents’ ability to use the street for parking due to construction equipment, movement of trucks and vehicles in and out of the area

● No contractor or employee parking on neighborhood streets in order to prioritize resident parking needs
Click to expand...

So, if I'm understanding this, they want the contractors to park for free on Pape? LOL

generalcanada said:
●Replant 2 native species trees in and around Minton Place and Crowthers Woods for every mature tree removed while building the bridge. In an area that is inundated with traffic and construction, The building of this bridge will have a huge impact on our green space. Metrolinx’s responsibility is to ensure that they repair the harm done, by replacing every tree and the vegetation destroyed by their construction. · This would be the smallest of tokens, given that the natural habitats of flora and fauna will be demolished, and in all likelihood, many plant life and the lives of animals will also be taken
Click to expand...

Ummm, its Crother's Woods

..

Also....2 trees for each one injured or removed is less than the current City standard of 3 for 1.

generalcanada said:
● Having our neighbours involved with the complete planning process for the Hopedale-Minton park space. Current suggestions state a lookout and a native plant garden would be the preferred design
Click to expand...

Someone send them my info, I'll design it.

generalcanada said:
● Beautify Pape Avenue with trees.
Click to expand...

Great, but requires taking away all parking on Pape and narrowing it by 2 lanes.
 
Northern Light said:
So, if I'm understanding this, they want the contractors to park for free on Pape? LOL
Click to expand...
i understand it as them saying if youre taking away some of our street parking, we need to be able to park on pape avenue.

They may get compensated somehow but giving them the ability to park on a 4-lane arterial road with hov bus lanes just isnt feasable
also planting new trees on it is also impossible, theres like no room
 
Honestly the part of the route where they *should* at least consider covering up the OL viaduct at Thorncliffe/Flemingdon - and there might be a good case for it.

AoD
 
generalcanada said:
i understand it as them saying if youre taking away some of our street parking, we need to be able to park on pape avenue.

They may get compensated somehow but giving them the ability to park on a 4-lane arterial road with hov bus lanes just isnt feasable
also planting new trees on it is also impossible, theres like no room
Click to expand...

My tongue was in my cheek there; they also demanded that contractors not park on their streets; in addition to the free parking on Pape.......

I purposefully conflated that.
 
Northern Light said:
My tongue was in my cheek there; they also demanded that contractors not park on their streets; in addition to the free parking on Pape.......

I purposefully conflated that.
Click to expand...
They want to keep contractors off their streets, park for free on Pape, and also plant trees where cars would normally park on Pape. It's like eating your cake, having it too, and also offering it to someone else!
 
There is no case for covering the bridge over the Don River Valley. Unless we are going to cover the road bridge as well. Transit riders (on emission-free vehicles) deserve to enjoy the view on their commute more than individual drivers. The same twisted logic led to burying the lrt in Ottawa for nearly a mile on a scenic stretch of the Ottawa River that is nearly as wide as the Eglinton West right of way which ....

Ontario keeps doing the same stupid thing again and again.
 
CapitalSeven said:
There is no case for covering the bridge over the Don River Valley. Unless we are going to cover the road bridge as well. Transit riders (on emission-free vehicles) deserve to enjoy the view on their commute more than individual drivers. The same twisted logic led to burying the lrt in Ottawa for nearly a mile on a scenic stretch of the Ottawa River that is nearly as wide as the Eglinton West right of way which ....

Ontario keeps doing the same stupid thing again and again.
Click to expand...
What Ottawa did sort of makes sense. There really isn't much on SJAM, and the Byron allignment will serve far more people. Plus the original allignment had at grade crossings iirc which definitely isn't great. While ideally we maybe could've elevated the line down Byron, a cut and cover tunnel definitely isn't the worst, and its clear through stuff like the chosen allignment for Barrhaven that tunneling for the sake of tunneling isn't an objective in the minds of the planners for the O-Train.
 
ARG1 said:
What Ottawa did sort of makes sense. There really isn't much on SJAM, and the Byron allignment will serve far more people. Plus the original allignment had at grade crossings iirc which definitely isn't great. While ideally we maybe could've elevated the line down Byron, a cut and cover tunnel definitely isn't the worst, and its clear through stuff like the chosen allignment for Barrhaven that tunneling for the sake of tunneling isn't an objective in the minds of the planners for the O-Train.
Click to expand...
Even after the Byron alignment was chosen, there was another fight about this though. The NCC wanted the LRT in a tunnel as soon as it left the transitway at Dominion because the idea of people on the SJAM seeing a train was apparently horrifying to them, whereas the city wanted it above ground for a stretch before it entered the portal to go under Byron. The final result is essentially a compromise where the train gets a tiny view of the river before going into the tunnel.

Even more ridiculously, there were complaints by some government agency (probably also the NCC, but I don't exactly remember) that running the LRT next to the 417 out towards Kanata would be "bad for tourism" somehow, but thankfully no one was stupid enough to build a tunnel there.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top